The Hard Look

Global Ocean Warming Means What?

In general, scientists thought warming oceans meant less dissolved oxygen and thus smaller fish and thus less of them.  But, in a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) last week comes hard data from Thresher, Koslow, Morison and Smith finding that water temperatures associated with global warming over the past 60 years has had the opposite effect.  We also thought the oceans aren’t much of an organic carbon sink, but that now seems in question too

What do these studies tell us about global warming and the oceans?

Virginia's Muddle

In what has to be one of the funniest editorials in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, if it weren’t so sad, A. Barton Hinkle tries to figure out the steps Virginia is taking to save the world from global warming, while solving the transportation problem in Northern Virginia and also cleaning up the Bay.  You can find it here.

Here’s his finale:

Just in case you lost track of the bouncing ball, here it is: Virginia has finally put the crisis-ignoring haters of truth in their place by passing a roads package to encourage the use of cars that are destroying the planet, so people can reach their sprawling subdivisions that Virginia is trying to keep in check with tax-subsidized conservation easements that will grow less popular as corn grows more expensive thanks to ethanol mandates from a federal government that is also mandating a cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay whose pollution will be made worse by corn farming.

Unintended Un-Warming Consequences

In the mad rush to cure global climate change (man-made warming), the White House wants to expand bio-fuels by 35 Billion gallons per year – by any count a hefty amount.  Indeed, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee will hold a hearing on a bill sponsored by Rick Boucher (R-VA) this Thursday, April 26, (in Rayburn 2123, for those who want to attend).  Here’s the problem – bio-fuels cause more harm than they prevent.

In a study being issued today (see the press release here ), the Journal of the Society of the Chemical Industry (“Chemistry & Industry”) reports that petroleum based fuels emit 85 percent of their greenhouse gases at the final stage, in the engine.  But, two-thirds of emissions produced by rapeseed derived bio-fuel occur during farming.  Apparently, rapeseed crops emit nitrous oxide, which is 200-300 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.

On balance, it makes more sense to build bio-fuels out of crops that long ago gave up their greenhouse gases.  What would those crops be?  Well . . . now we call them coal.  And I’m not being sarcastic here.  There are some dandy third generation bio-fuels technologies that will turn coal into ethanol, saving the corn for the cows and eliminating the need for rapeseed crops. (Here’s an example.) 

Bottom line for the House Committee - look very hard at your plans.  You can avoid some unintended consequences. 

What’s Our Green Goal?

Fairfax County, like everyone else, suffers from a serious problem when trying to be “green”.  It doesn’t have a definition of “green.”  Indeed, it’s possible to be “green” (that’s good) and be a “greenwasher” (that’s bad) at the same time.

(What’s greenwashing?  It’s appearing to be “green” when the reality is that the action isn’t really helpful for the environment.  Here’s one discussion on that. ) 

Consider the issue of hybrid cars and trucks.  As of January 1, this year, the County owns 59 Toyota Prius and 30 Ford Escape sport utility vehicles and one plug-in hybrid.  (See the 2006 EQAC report here, at page 56.) On its face, it seems like the Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape SUV are “green” vehicles.  They get fairly good mileage, although not as much as they advertise.  (See actual mileage data here.)  This saves the County money in fuel expenses (not a green issue), reduces air pollution because of the higher gas mileage (that’s green).  So what’s not green about these cars?  Well, it’s the global warming thing. 

When looking at how to reduce global warming when buying and using cars, the key is to look at the total energy cost of the car.  This is called “Dust-to-Dust” or “Life-cycle” evaluation.  An independent auto analysis group has done just that for the majority of cars in use in the U.S. today. (See it here.) They looked at the energy consumption from design, through manufacture, use and to final retirement and disposal.  In a mammoth 450+ page study, they found out that my “traditional” full-size 28 mpg Toyota Avalon energy costs are $1.99 per mile, compared to $2.86 per mile for the Prius and $3.54 per mile for the Ford Escape.  That means a County Prius causes 44 % more global warming than my big car, and the County’s Escape causes 78 % more global warming than my Avalon. 

In further comparison, the County could have purchased Toyota Corollas that get nearly the same actual suburban mileage as the Prius, but at a true “green” life-cycle energy cost of $0.72 per mile.  This means the Corolla causes one fourth the global warming than the Prius with about the same day-to-day gasoline costs.  It gets worse.  A Ford Navigator (luxury SUV) has an energy cost of $2.94 per mile, causing only 83 % as much global warming as the Ford Escape hybrid (but at much higher gas mileage).   

So which car is more green?  Hmmmm, maybe the Corolla?  And finally, is the County being green or is it greenwashing?  Hmmmm, I’m not sure. 

Maybe it’s time the County took the time to define what it means by being green.

The Tragedy at Virginia Tech

There can be but one horror worse than losing a child in a tragedy like that at Virginia Tech yesterday, and that would be to find out your son caused it. 

To a parent, all other issues in life pale in comparison to this.  TheHardLook extends its deepest sympathy to the parents of those who lost their children yesterday.  May peace come to those we lost and to those left behind.

There’s a Development Storm Brewing

Call me Cassandra, but I think there is a nasty political storm brewing about the future of Fairfax County.  In some ways this is an old story.  Folks here have complained about congestion, traffic, roads, development and the like since the late 70’s when I moved to the area.  The complaints have only gotten worse and all the blather about so-called “Smart Growth” hasn’t made a dent in the din.  Well, now I’m seeing a mood swing from unhappy to just plain ugly and I don’t think “Sensible Growth” is going to be enough to solve the problem. (To read a report on the differences between “Smart” and “Sensible” Growth, go here with updates here and here.) 

I think the voters are getting ready to demand a hard look at our assumptions about growth and I don’t think they are going to like what they see.  My guess is their reaction is not going to come out in the wash, but at the ballot box.  So, let’s go back to the basics.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, and its Planning Commission, take the following view: 

·        The County is nearly built out (no more room for horizontal development).  This is factually true.

·        The County will grow in population through greater and greater residential housing density by building vertically.  Population growth is a choice, not a necessity.

·        We aren’t going to build any more major roads, as least not easily.  Building roads is never easy, but to say there won’t be more roads is a choice, not a necessity.

·        We can build more density around mass transit.  This assumes mass transit can service the new growth, and this isn’t true. 

The Board sets out these assumptions and presumptions in a variety of places, and particularly in its Comprehensive Plan.  You can find one example here.  The end result of this “planning” is a still more congested urban county, not the suburban county of today.

The problem with this vision of Fairfax County comes from the presumption of population growth.  The fact is, the citizens don’t want any more growth.  They want the suburban lifestyle with less congestion, good schools and a reasonable commute to work.  They care about both taxes and quality of life and they want to reduce the former and maintain the latter.  (Take a look at these rants on that subject here.)  Let’s see where these two diametrically opposed visions would take the County.

It Isn't Easy Being Green

You don’t have to be a frog to find it isn’t easy being green.  As we look around Fairfax County government, we find many shades of green, from the anti-people eco-extremism of some policies to the palest of green from “greenwashing”.    After all, what does it mean to say something or someone is “green”? 

There is no definition for being green, which is to say, no one can say what is “green” enough or what is too much.  Let’s take an example – green buildings. 

The U.S. General Services Administration commissioned the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to conduct a review of five programs builders can use to demonstrate they have built a “green” building.  See a report on it here  (sidebar at page 56).  Two programs rank at the top of the list, the Green Globes program and the LEED program.  As the discussion on this report points out, Green Globes was developed by the Green  Building Initiative, an entity in the U.S. accredited as a standards developing organization (“SDO”) by the American National Standards Institute.  That means, if a competitor in the building industry believes the Green Globes program is arbitrary or capricious, or was developed in such a manner, that competitor can go to court and have the standards invalidated.  At present, the LEED program was developed without these procedural safeguards and cannot be challenged if they are arbitrary or capricious, but the LEED owners have now become an SDO and the next iteration of their program might be as defensible as the Green Globes program.

In addition, the University of Minnesota studied these two programs, finding nearly 80 % of the points the Green Globes program can award a building are available in the LEED program, and 85 % of the points in the LEED program can be awarded under the Green Globes program.  As well, the Clinton Presidential Library was certified under the Green Globes program and Firemen’s Fund insurance offers the same 5% premium to buildings certified under either program.  Fairfax County has entered this market and opted to use the LEED program and shows no evidence it even considered using the Green Globe program.  See the County announcement here.  So is Fairfax County green enough when it certifies under the LEED program but rejects the Green Globes program?  Or is it too green?  Or is it just confused? 

Let’s look at another corner of the bureaucracy – the Park Authority and “green space.”  The Board of Supervisors has established, and met, a goal to set aside 10 % of the county as green space.  See their environmental goals here.  But is buying land being “green”?  It may be little more than being an absent property owner failing to maintain the property.  Indeed, the County cannot maintain its property.  As Judy Peterson of the Park Authority admits:

“Unbudgeted funding needs for ongoing building and land maintenance are estimated at $715,797 in Fiscal Year 2007, $740,544 in Fiscal Year 2008 and at $766,164 in Fiscal Year 2009. However, these do not include the management of our natural and cultural resources or the needs identified in the Natural Resource or Cultural Resource Management plans.” 

Perhaps the edges of the Park Authority’s green program are turning an ugly shade of brown. 

And, how ‘bout them ball fields?  Are they green?  Ms Pederson also admits:

“The Needs Assessment completed in 2004 estimated a Countywide need of 117 rectangular fields, 12 adult softball fields, five youth softball fields, 18 adult baseball fields and a surplus of youth baseball fields.  Since the Park Authority is not the sole provider of sports fields, the Park Authority endorsed a contribution level goal over the next ten years of 95 rectangular fields, four adult softball fields and nine adult baseball fields.” 

But, the Park Authority also admits it can’t meet the maintenance on existing facilities and has nowhere near the money needed to build the 10 fields per year to which it has committed.  Are they not green enough for failing to get these fields built, or does delay of building ball fields mean the forest and meadows stay in place, and that is more “green”? 

I don’t know.  Point is, however, neither does the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.  On the one hand they endorse the LEED program that considers it “green” to limit parking at a new "green" commercial building to “no parking” (that’s worth one point!), on the other hand, they don’t budget enough money to maintain the park land.  In another example, they purchased $92,800 for a year of wind power to fight global warming, but for one-seventh the amount they could have gotten just as much, but could also have gotten $ 5 million worth of nutrient reduction to the Chesapeake Bay.  (See here for more on that.) Is that really being green?

How about this modest suggestion.  Let’s have the County spend a little more time looking at alternatives and competitive uses of our “green” budget.  Let’s see what gives us the biggest green for the buck.  We could call this something catchy – how about good government, or better yet Environmental Leadership.  If Fairfax County wants to be a national leader, it should do more than just spend a lot of money.  It needs to demonstrate some plain old common sense in its environmental purchases.  If it could show the rest of the nation how to do that, then it might earn the title of being a leader on environmental issues.  It isn’t a leader yet, and any claims to the contrary are the worst kind of “greenwashing”.  After all, it isn’t easy being green.